"It’s not a technical problem," an Israeli government advisor told Danger Room in January. "If we want to do it, we can do it." American assistance would not be required, he claimed.

"The problem is not military capability, the problem is whether you have the stomach, the political will, to take action," another advisor tells The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg.

Abdullah Toucan, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, prepared a detailed assessment of what would an Israeli strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities might look like. It studies possible flight paths, the number of sorties to be flown, and the kind of damage that would need to be inflicted on "hardened" nuclear facilities.

The study explores two scenarios: An intricately orchestrated strike by Israeli air force jets (à la Osirak), or an Israelli ballistic missile attack against Iranian facilities. Iran’s nuclear program is geographically dispersed, but there are at least three key targets here: a nuclear research center and uranium conversion facility at Esfahan; an enrichment facility at Natanz; and a heavy water plant at Arak. Destroying or damaging those three, the CSIS report reckons, "could either destroy the program or delay for some years."

In recent months, Israel has demonstrated that it can strike targets in places like Sudan and Syria; that seems to have given the Israelis some measure of confidence in their capabilities. But Iran poses a serious challenge of distance. Looking at the map, crossing into northern Iran means transiting Iraqi or Turkish airspace; flying to central Iran means crossing Syrian and Iraqi territory; taking the southern route involves going over Saudi Arabia and Iraq. All paths in would require pilots to hug international boundaries and avoid detection.

Scenario 2 — ballistic missile attack — starts to look like a much more attractive option. The report weighs up the blast effects and accuracy of the Jericho III multi-stage ballistic missile with a 750 kilogram warhead. Depending on the kind of overpressure you are trying to create — 10 pounds-per-square-inch (psi) can severely damage a reinforced concrete building, but 5 psi will probably do the job on most structures — you would need around two missiles per site; an underground facility would require at least 15. "If the Jericho III is fully developed and its accuracy (CEP) is quite high then this scenario could look much more feasible than using combat aircraft," the report states.

But the study also weighs the immense fallout in terms of environmental damage and regional political instability. An Israeli attack, the study suggests, could have an immediate destabilizing effect on places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and would prompt direct or indirect retaliation against Israel.

Earlier this year, a career Israeli security official told Danger Room: "I don’t think Israel’s existence depends on whether Iran has a Bomb or not. We have deterrence." But that was before a new, and more hawkish government took over. Now Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is warning that he was ready to order an attack on Iran, if necessary. "You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs," he said. "When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran."

Here’s The Thing With Ad Blockers

We get it: Ads aren’t what you’re here for. But ads help us keep the lights on. So, add us to your ad blocker’s whitelist or pay $1 per week for an ad-free version of WIRED. Either way, you are supporting our journalism. We’d really appreciate it.